Yes
25% (43)

Almost
6% (11)

Not even close
69% (118)

172 total votes.

When Gov. Jerry Brown last year signed legislation to trim public pension costs, he signaled that he would build on the momentum.

“It’s not perfect because we don’t deal with perfection in politics. We deal with imperfection,” Brown said before signing the package, less ambitious than he originally proposed. “We’re taking as bold a step as the process would allow. And where more is needed down the road, then more will be proposed.”

The compromise law requires public employees hired this year to work longer before they retire with their full benefits. It caps benefits for the highest earners and requires workers to eventually contribute at least half toward their retirement plan.

But even the rosiest cost-saving estimates from the overhaul fall short of what’s needed to rein in mounting retirement costs, experts say.

The state’s public pension systems — for state workers, teachers, professors and judges — over the next three decades estimate that they’ll owe nearly $120 billion more in benefits than will be available to pay. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System pegs the savings from Brown’s package at up to $55 billion over 30 years. And the California State Teachers’ Retirement System projects the measure will close its funding gap by $23 billion.

Investment gurus and academics project the eventual tab for retirees as being much higher than the government’s tally — from $270 billion to surpassing $500 billion.

“My best estimate is the reforms that have been implemented might reduce that unfunded liability by about 10 percent,” said Joe Nation, a former Democratic assemblyman who now teaches public policy at Stanford University. “So, if you’re $400 billion underfunded, it’s probably around a $40-billion improvement.”

“The question is whether people want to declare victory having solved 10 percent of a problem,” he added. “I certainly hope that’s not the case,”

In his mostly favorable overview of Brown’s proposed 2013-14 budget, Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor warned the multiyear plan would not begin the process of addressing huge unfunded liabilities associated with the teachers’ retirement system and state retiree health benefits.

“As such, the state faces daunting budget choices even in the much-improved fiscal environment,” Taylor wrote.

While Brown has rejected attempts to backslide on reform, including moving to veto a handful of union-backed bills, his spokesman wouldn’t say whether he again plans to take up the pension mantle.

“I was disappointed that the governor didn’t sit there and bash heads,” said Chris Burdick, a Marin County attorney and Democrat who specializes in pension law, referring to last year’s battle.

Some believe meaningful savings can only come from peeling back benefits coming due to existing workers. A two-year-old study by the Little Hoover Commission, which reports to the Legislature, found that changes for new hires would not begin to deliver savings for a generation — even as pension costs multiply.

“I’ve argued all along that you can’t solve this unless you adjust benefits prospectively,” Nation said. “I think most people will think that’s fair.”

Critics of the approach point to court decisions siding with employees. The lack of action even on more modest proposals such as adding independent financial experts to the boards of the state’s main pension funds has sparked fear that the window on broad legislative overhauls has closed — and that the looming battle will have to shift to the ballot.